Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Do you know what "pre-established" means? It means it was already set up in a previous film and now it's being used here. Luke is a pre-established character. So is 3P0. Or Leia.

Kylo is new, Hux is new, Poe is new, Finn is new, Rey is new, Maz Kanata is new, Max von Sydow is new, and so far, Snoke is new. Just like how the Emperor was new in ESB, and we didn't have to get a flashback trilogy to his rise to power to buy in to the fact that he ruled the galaxy. It's a space adventure, not a biographical documentary.

Yeah in ESB then he was revealed to be a villain a part of a 1000+ year rivalry between the Jedi and Sith. The Sith are the rivals of the Jedi, have been for eternity. I fully expect Snoke to be a Sith and if he's a Sith Plagueis makes the most

Kylo is new but he has a pretty clear connection to previous movies through his grandfather Vader. Rey is likely a Skywalker so same thing. And yes I'm not saying new elements aren't great but the point of having the saga is to tie them together. As I said if this were a reboot rather than a sequel I'd be down for a completely new unaffiliated villain.

quote:

It "should" be? Why? Like, aside from people who don't feel comfortable unless the dozen or so main characters of these films in a vast galaxy are all closely interconnected with each other, why "should" the new villain in the new sequel trilogy have to have been mentioned or used in the last trilogies? Why can't it be a new character who is revealed to the audience to have had a connection to Palpatine?

Because it adds a little something called gravitas

quote:

He could have been the Emperor's accomplice, the Emperor's brother, the Emperor's secret Super Emperor, or the Emperor's other apprentice. Or something. Like, let him have a connection to Palpatine, sure. By why Plagueis specifically? Why MUST it be something we heard in the PT or OT? Why can't he be someone connected to Palpatine or Vader, and still be wholly original in his own right?

quote:

Has that already been established in a cross-section or encyclopedia somewhere? That Snoke watched from the shadows the rise and fall of the Empire? If so... ehhhh. Not a fan of that. Too much of the in the SW franchise over the years. The True Sith, the Lost Sith, the One Sith, the Rule of Two, the Vong. Even Thrawn kind of. All in the background biding their time. Overused.

Established in the novel. Pretty much as soon as I heard that I thought Plageuis was the best fit.

quote:

If it's not established, then... not an issue. He's an up-and-comer Dark Overlord who was connected to the Emperor? Or was the leader of a cult of Palpatine worshipers? Iunno. Don't care either, so long as it's handled well. But the weight of it's handling certainly does not require Snoke's origin to have been mentioned in the other films.

The Plagueis thing is too much of an insider perspective. He's really just a throwaway reference in ROTS- and committed fans tend to pick up on and speculate on references like that.

But it's a name that is meaningless to the writers of the new stories (and, to be honest, also meaningless to most people watching the film). I am pretty sure they have created their own villain. I prefer it that way because you want something new like that in a sequel story- we already have enough troubles with them not being adventurous enough.

__________________

"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"

Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.

But I am totally unconvinced that anything is pointing at it. All we have is that a. he's a spare character that has been mentioned but not seen- part of an effort by a totally different creative team- and b. that John Williams uses low choral voices to show dark side menace.

Against that, we have the total lack of a Darth title, the fact that Kylo is not a Sith, that Andy Serkis said it was a brand new character- and the overall 'doesn't actually achieve anything-ness' of the whole idea.

__________________

"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"

the trouble with the theory is its convenience. especially for writers looking to unify this story with the PT and OT as opposed to it being a mostly separate story.

the temptation may well have been there to canonize palpatine's indirect claim that plageous created anakin, which could mean that the skywalkers were created by an agent of the darkside, cursing him and his decedents, as you yourself have similarly hypothesized (the skywalker curse, i mean). it's all just too damn convenient and so i fear it may come true.

i really dont want to debate it though because i hate defending bad ideas.

__________________

Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.

I'm a bit iffy on that 'unify the story with the PT' bit though- my impression is that they are keeping that at arm's length. I've been pleasantly surprised that any stylistic links made it at all, but a direct continuity call out like that would surprise me greatly. I'd need to be far more convinced.

__________________

"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"

Originally posted by Ushgarak The Plagueis thing is too much of an insider perspective. He's really just a throwaway reference in ROTS- and committed fans tend to pick up on and speculate on references like that.

But it's a name that is meaningless to the writers of the new stories (and, to be honest, also meaningless to most people watching the film). I am pretty sure they have created their own villain. I prefer it that way because you want something new like that in a sequel story- we already have enough troubles with them not being adventurous enough.

Sure, that's a fair point. But do you know who else was a throwaway reference in ANH?(please log in to view the image)

that wasn't a throwaway reference, though. he was the ruler of the empire, directly and unavoidably relevant to the present/future story.

__________________

Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.

Originally posted by Ushgarak The Plagueis thing is too much of an insider perspective. He's really just a throwaway reference in ROTS- and committed fans tend to pick up on and speculate on references like that.

But it's a name that is meaningless to the writers of the new stories (and, to be honest, also meaningless to most people watching the film). I am pretty sure they have created their own villain. I prefer it that way because you want something new like that in a sequel story- we already have enough troubles with them not being adventurous enough.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg that wasn't a throwaway reference, though. he was the ruler of the empire, directly and unavoidably relevant to the present/future story.

Yeah it was. Palpatine was initially going to be a figure head for ministers like Tarkin.

"Aided and abetted by restless, power-hungry individuals within the government, and the massive organs of commerce, the ambitious Senator Palpatine caused himself to be elected President of the Republic. He promised to reunite the disaffected among the people and to restore the remembered glory of the Republic. Once secure in office he declared himself Emperor, shutting himself away from the populace. Soon he was controlled by the very assistants and boot-lickers he had appointed to high office, and the cries of the people for justice did not reach his ears."- 1976 concept of Palpatine

It was only later did George come up with the concept of one villainous ruler and the embodiment of evil. Shit even Palpatine being a Sith Lord didn't come till the Prequels

Originally posted by Lord Stark Yeah in ESB then he was revealed to be a villain a part of a 1000+ year rivalry between the Jedi and Sith. The Sith are the rivals of the Jedi, have been for eternity. I fully expect Snoke to be a Sith and if he's a Sith Plagueis makes the most

The PT gave him a Sithly background, but as of the OT alone, Palpatine was still convincing and believable as the Big Bad of the Empire. Mentioned in ANH, seen in ESB, met (and defeated) in RotJ.

Simple. We got who and what he was without an elaborate backstory, and we didn't need to see his rise to power. His backstory wasn't the point of the film. His antagonism of and defeat by the heroes was. Why can't that be the same for Snoke? We don't need a detailed backstory, you just want one.

Originally posted by Lord Stark Kylo is new but he has a pretty clear connection to previous movies through his grandfather Vader. Rey is likely a Skywalker so same thing. And yes I'm not saying new elements aren't great but the point of having the saga is to tie them together. As I said if this were a reboot rather than a sequel I'd be down for a completely new unaffiliated villain.

You can tie the trilogies together without making all the connections pre-established. That's what I'm arguing against. Pre-establishing Snoke by making him Plagueis. He doesn't need to be Plagueis in order for him to be connected to Palpatine and the Empire. In the next film we could learn he was a student, an accomplice, an ally, a relative, or anything. He could even have been his true master--revealing that the Plagueis legend is just a legend used for storytelling or manipulation.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The PT gave him a Sithly background, but as of the OT alone, Palpatine was still convincing and believable as the Big Bad of the Empire. Mentioned in ANH, seen in ESB, met (and defeated) in RotJ.

Except as I mentioned before the Emperor was not intended to be the big bad in ANH.

quote:

Simple. We got who and what he was without an elaborate backstory, and we didn't need to see his rise to power. His backstory wasn't the point of the film. His antagonism of and defeat by the heroes was. Why can't that be the same for Snoke? We don't need a detailed backstory, you just want one.

He's a fallen Skywalker and the grandson of Darth Vader...not to mention the son of Han Solo. He's using his relation to previously established characters to establish his own validity as a villain. Do you really think anyone would care about Kylo if he was some random dude Snoke, another random dude picked up?

The answer is no.

quote:

You can tie the trilogies together without making all the connections pre-established. That's what I'm arguing against. Pre-establishing Snoke by making him Plagueis. He doesn't need to be Plagueis in order for him to be connected to Palpatine and the Empire. In the next film we could learn he was a student, an accomplice, an ally, a relative, or anything. He could even have been his true master--revealing that the Plagueis legend is just a legend used for storytelling or manipulation.

Of course he doesn't need to be Plagueis. But I think he'd frankly be a better villain than random dude who watched the rise and fall of the galactic empire. With the Sith being established by the Prequels as the 1,000+ year antagonists for the Jedi, it'd seem odd if suddenly for the last 3 films it wasn't the Sith.

quote:

No, it doesn't. It adds a safe sense of comfort for those who feel it couldn't possibly be any other way.

Did you read your own definition. It would add substance and weight to the story. I'm not really comforted by it, but I do think an ancient Sith Lord is a far better villain than some random dude.

It kind of loosens the credibility of the Sith if some random Dark Side warlord can outdo the Empire that was the culmination of 1,000 years of planning. It also destroys the credibility of any sort of long term peace in the galaxy if any random never before mentioned character can threaten galactic peace by seducing a ****ing teenager into giving into his hormones.

quote:

It fits, but again it isn't necessary. Just convenient.

Its not necessary, but as I said adds far more weight.

quote:

Eh. I'm all in favour of moving on from them. Don't contradict them, but never acknowledge them either.

That's retarded. This isn't X-Men: Days of Future Past where you can right out an inconvenient movie through lol time travel. The Prequels are not only a part of the Star Wars universe, they are an integral part.

Originally posted by Lord Stark It wasn't his Empire. Did you even read the passage? The entire plot could have easily gone on without a single on screen appearance by the Emperor.

He was originally a background character who became the single biggest villain in the SWs universe.

Yes I read it and?

They simply changed their intentions about the character. Considering the Rebels were fighting the Empire, the Emperor being a villain was a natural evolution of the story. Nor did it contradict anything.

They simply changed their intentions about the character. Considering the Rebels were fighting the Empire, the Emperor being a villain was a natural evolution of the story. Nor did it contradict anything.

It's an apples and oranges comparison.

So why can't the intentions about Plagueis not also be changed? The Jedi not fighting the Sith isn't similar? Snoke will eventually have to be a Sith. There's only one Sith Lord in the entirety of the canon who has not appeared on screen. Is that not also a how do you say, natural progression?